Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic

ANTO1705 M. Antonius (28) M. f. M. n.

Status

  • Nobilis Expand

    Cic. Planc. 13.33-14.33, Liv. Per. 80

Life Dates

  • 143, birth (Sumner Orators) Expand

    Sumner R103.

  • 87, death - violent (Broughton MRR II) Expand

    Executed.

Relationships

grandson of
? M. Antonius (27) (tr. pl. 167) (RE)
son of
? M. Antonius (27) (tr. pl. 167) (RE)
father of
Antonia (109) (daughter of M. Antonius (28) M. f. M. n. (cos. 99)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Manil. 33, Plut. Pomp. 24.6

C. Antonius (19) M. f. M. n. Hybrida (cos. 63) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Asc. Tog. Cand. 82C, Asc. Tog. Cand. 94C, Cic. Phil. II 98

M. Antonius (29) M. f. Creticus (pr. 74) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Plut. Ant. 1.1

grandfather of
M. Antonius (30) M. f. M. n. (cos. 44) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Phil. I 27

Career

  • Quaestor 113 Asia? (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • According to Valerius Maximus, Antonius was exempted from prosecution under a clause of the Lex Memmia by reason of absence on public duty. He must either refer to a Memmius who preceded the Tribune of 111 (cf. RE s. v. "Lex" 12.2398) or have committed an anachronism, as in the case of Perperna, Cos. 130, and the Lex Papia, 65 B.C. (3.4.5). For Memmii in the Senate before 111, see the S.C. de agro Pergameno, dated in 129 by Passerini, Athenaeum 15 (1937) 252ff.; and see 112, Legates. (Broughton MRR I)
    • Learning at Brundisium on his way to Asia that he was accused of incest with a Vestal, he returned, stood trial, and was acquitted (Val. Max. 3.7.9; 6.8.1; see 112, Promagistrates). (Broughton MRR I)
  • Propraetor 112 Asia? (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Quaestor pro praetore, probably in Asia, since he was honored at Delos under this title by the Pisidian town of Prostaenna (I. de Délos 4.1.1603; cf. Holleaux, REA 19 [1917] 91). See 113, Quaestors. (Broughton MRR I)
  • Praetor 102 quo senatus censuisset, Cilicia (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • The date is given by Livy and Obsequens. The title in Livy is praetor, in Cicero (De Or. 1.82) and CIL is pro consule, and in IGRP {Gr}. He probably began while Praetor and was continued in command with an imperium pro consule (Broughton, loc. cit.). A clue to the duration of his command and the date of the triumph is given by Cicero (Rab. Perd. 26), who tells us that on December 10, 100, at the time of riots in which Saturninus perished (App. BC 1.33), Antonius was extra urbem cum praesidio, that is, like Marcius{570} Rex and Metellus Creticus in 63, he had returned but had not yet entered the city in triumph (Broughton, loc. cit.; see 101, and 100, Promagistrates). (Broughton MRR I)
    • Received command against the pirates in Cilicia, a command which he continued to hold until 100, when he celebrated, probably between December 10 and 29, a triumph for his successes (CIL 1 .2.2662; IGRP 4.1116; I. de Délos 4.1.1700, after 97 B.C.; Cic. De Or. 1.82; 2.2; Leg. Man. 33; Liv. Per. 68; Trogus, Prolog. 39; Plut. Pomp. 24.6; Obseq. 44; see 101, and 100, Promagistrates; Taylor and West, AJA 32 [1928] 1-22; Broughton, TAPha 77 [1946] 35-40). (Broughton MRR I)
    • Contrary to the view expressed in MRR 1.568, and 569, note 2, and TAPhA 77, 1946, 35-40, that he was a praetor in 100 and proconsul in 101 and 100, comparison with many governors who went to Spain as praetors with an imperium pro consule (see Jashemski, Proconsular and Propraetorian Imperium, 41-50) has led me to believe that this was the nature of his command too, whether he is termed praetor as in Livy (Per. 68) or proconsul as in Cicero (De Or. 1.82) or in the epigram from Corinth (CIL 1(2).2.2662-ILLRP 1342). Accordingly, his titles give no clue to the course of his actions or to the dates of his quaestors and his legates. It becomes possible, for example, to date the epigram from Corinth, the stay of the fleet under Hirrus, and perhaps even his advance to Side all in the year 102. Note the contribution to his forces from Byzantium (Tac. Ann. 12.62.2). On Antonius in Asia Minor, see Magie, RRAM 283, 1161- 1162; Sherwin-White, JRS 66, 1976, 4-8; 67, 1977; 69-70. His triumph in 100 must be dated after the death of Saturninus, when he was still extra urbem, and before the end of the year (Cic. Rab. Perd. 21). See below, on L. Appuleius Saturninus (29). Consul 99. In MRR 2.1, refer also to CIL 11.2.2305-ILLRP 209. Legatus in the Social War? In Brutus 304 Cicero notes his absence from Rome in 90 and 89. Even though he is not on Appian's list of legates (BC 1.40-41), it is reasonable to infer that he served in the war, quite possibly, as Badian suggests, as one of L. Caesar's legati (Historia 6, 1957, 341-342-Studies 56-57). (Broughton MRR III)
    • p. 746, footnote 243 (Brennan 2000)
  • Proconsul 101 Cilicia (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Proconsul (CIL 1 .2.2662; Cic. De Or. 1.82; cf. IGRP 4.1116) in command of the war against the Cilician pirates. See 102, Praetors, and 100, Promagistrates. (Broughton MRR I)
    • Contrary to the view expressed in MRR 1.568, and 569, note 2, and TAPhA 77, 1946, 35-40, that he was a praetor in 100 and proconsul in 101 and 100, comparison with many governors who went to Spain as praetors with an imperium pro consule (see Jashemski, Proconsular and Propraetorian Imperium, 41-50) has led me to believe that this was the nature of his command too, whether he is termed praetor as in Livy (Per. 68) or proconsul as in Cicero (De Or. 1.82) or in the epigram from Corinth (CIL 1(2).2.2662-ILLRP 1342). Accordingly, his titles give no clue to the course of his actions or to the dates of his quaestors and his legates. It becomes possible, for example, to date the epigram from Corinth, the stay of the fleet under Hirrus, and perhaps even his advance to Side all in the year 102. Note the contribution to his forces from Byzantium (Tac. Ann. 12.62.2). On Antonius in Asia Minor, see Magie, RRAM 283, 1161- 1162; Sherwin-White, JRS 66, 1976, 4-8; 67, 1977; 69-70. His triumph in 100 must be dated after the death of Saturninus, when he was still extra urbem, and before the end of the year (Cic. Rab. Perd. 21). See below, on L. Appuleius Saturninus (29). Consul 99. In MRR 2.1, refer also to CIL 11.2.2305-ILLRP 209. Legatus in the Social War? In Brutus 304 Cicero notes his absence from Rome in 90 and 89. Even though he is not on Appian's list of legates (BC 1.40-41), it is reasonable to infer that he served in the war, quite possibly, as Badian suggests, as one of L. Caesar's legati (Historia 6, 1957, 341-342-Studies 56-57). (Broughton MRR III)
  • Augur? 100 to 88 (Rüpke 2005)
  • Proconsul 100 Cilicia (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Proconsul in Cilicia (see 102, Praetors, and 101, Promagistrates), and celebrated a triumph, probably between December 10 and the end of the year (Plut. Pomp. 24; see Degrassi 560f.; Broughton, TAPhA 77 [1946] 35-40).{577} (Broughton MRR I)
    • Contrary to the view expressed in MRR 1.568, and 569, note 2, and TAPhA 77, 1946, 35-40, that he was a praetor in 100 and proconsul in 101 and 100, comparison with many governors who went to Spain as praetors with an imperium pro consule (see Jashemski, Proconsular and Propraetorian Imperium, 41-50) has led me to believe that this was the nature of his command too, whether he is termed praetor as in Livy (Per. 68) or proconsul as in Cicero (De Or. 1.82) or in the epigram from Corinth (CIL 1(2).2.2662-ILLRP 1342). Accordingly, his titles give no clue to the course of his actions or to the dates of his quaestors and his legates. It becomes possible, for example, to date the epigram from Corinth, the stay of the fleet under Hirrus, and perhaps even his advance to Side all in the year 102. Note the contribution to his forces from Byzantium (Tac. Ann. 12.62.2). On Antonius in Asia Minor, see Magie, RRAM 283, 1161- 1162; Sherwin-White, JRS 66, 1976, 4-8; 67, 1977; 69-70. His triumph in 100 must be dated after the death of Saturninus, when he was still extra urbem, and before the end of the year (Cic. Rab. Perd. 21). See below, on L. Appuleius Saturninus (29). Consul 99. In MRR 2.1, refer also to CIL 11.2.2305-ILLRP 209. Legatus in the Social War? In Brutus 304 Cicero notes his absence from Rome in 90 and 89. Even though he is not on Appian's list of legates (BC 1.40-41), it is reasonable to infer that he served in the war, quite possibly, as Badian suggests, as one of L. Caesar's legati (Historia 6, 1957, 341-342-Studies 56-57). (Broughton MRR III)
  • Triumphator 100 (Rich 2014) Expand
    • Triumph de pirateis ex Cilicia. MRR I.568, Itgenshorst no. 233, Rich no. 235. (Rich 2014)
  • Consul 99 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • CIL 1².2.680; Cic. P. Red. ad Quir. 11; Fast. Cap., Degrassi 55f., 128, 478f.; Plin. NH 8.19; Gell. 4.6.1-2; Obseq. 46; Chr. 354 (Antonino et Albino); Fast. Hyd.; Chr. Pasc.; Cassiod.; on Antonius, I. de Delos 4.1.1700; App. BC 1.32; Apul. Apol. 17; and on Postumius, Grueber, CRRBM 1.509. Antonius opposed the agrarian law of Titius (Cic. De Or. 2.48, cf. 2.265; 3.10; see Tribunes of the Plebs). (Broughton MRR II)
    • Contrary to the view expressed in MRR 1.568, and 569, note 2, and TAPhA 77, 1946, 35-40, that he was a praetor in 100 and proconsul in 101 and 100, comparison with many governors who went to Spain as praetors with an imperium pro consule (see Jashemski, Proconsular and Propraetorian Imperium, 41-50) has led me to believe that this was the nature of his command too, whether he is termed praetor as in Livy (Per. 68) or proconsul as in Cicero (De Or. 1.82) or in the epigram from Corinth (CIL 1(2).2.2662-ILLRP 1342). Accordingly, his titles give no clue to the course of his actions or to the dates of his quaestors and his legates. It becomes possible, for example, to date the epigram from Corinth, the stay of the fleet under Hirrus, and perhaps even his advance to Side all in the year 102. Note the contribution to his forces from Byzantium (Tac. Ann. 12.62.2). On Antonius in Asia Minor, see Magie, RRAM 283, 1161- 1162; Sherwin-White, JRS 66, 1976, 4-8; 67, 1977; 69-70. His triumph in 100 must be dated after the death of Saturninus, when he was still extra urbem, and before the end of the year (Cic. Rab. Perd. 21). See below, on L. Appuleius Saturninus (29). Consul 99. In MRR 2.1, refer also to CIL 11.2.2305-ILLRP 209. Legatus in the Social War? In Brutus 304 Cicero notes his absence from Rome in 90 and 89. Even though he is not on Appian's list of legates (BC 1.40-41), it is reasonable to infer that he served in the war, quite possibly, as Badian suggests, as one of L. Caesar's legati (Historia 6, 1957, 341-342-Studies 56-57). (Broughton MRR III)
  • Censor 97 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Fast. Cap., Degrassi 54f., 128, 478f.; Val. Max. 2.9.5; and on Antonius, I. de Delos 4.1.1700; Cic. De Or. 3.10. They expelled the Tribune Duronius from the Senate for abrogating a sumptuary law (Val. Max. 2.9.5), and Antonius was later accused of ambitus by him (Cic. De Or. 2.274). Antonius also adorned the Rostra with his spoils from Cilicia (Cic. De Or. 3.10). They reappointed M. Aemilius Scaurus as Princeps Senatus (Ascon. In Scaur. 18 and 22C). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Legatus (Lieutenant)? 90 Italia (Broughton MRR III) Expand
    • Contrary to the view expressed in MRR 1.568, and 569, note 2, and TAPhA 77, 1946, 35-40, that he was a praetor in 100 and proconsul in 101 and 100, comparison with many governors who went to Spain as praetors with an imperium pro consule (see Jashemski, Proconsular and Propraetorian Imperium, 41-50) has led me to believe that this was the nature of his command too, whether he is termed praetor as in Livy (Per. 68) or proconsul as in Cicero (De Or. 1.82) or in the epigram from Corinth (CIL 1(2).2.2662-ILLRP 1342). Accordingly, his titles give no clue to the course of his actions or to the dates of his quaestors and his legates. It becomes possible, for example, to date the epigram from Corinth, the stay of the fleet under Hirrus, and perhaps even his advance to Side all in the year 102. Note the contribution to his forces from Byzantium (Tac. Ann. 12.62.2). On Antonius in Asia Minor, see Magie, RRAM 283, 1161- 1162; Sherwin-White, JRS 66, 1976, 4-8; 67, 1977; 69-70. His triumph in 100 must be dated after the death of Saturninus, when he was still extra urbem, and before the end of the year (Cic. Rab. Perd. 21). See below, on L. Appuleius Saturninus (29). Consul 99. In MRR 2.1, refer also to CIL 11.2.2305-ILLRP 209. Legatus in the Social War? In Brutus 304 Cicero notes his absence from Rome in 90 and 89. Even though he is not on Appian's list of legates (BC 1.40-41), it is reasonable to infer that he served in the war, quite possibly, as Badian suggests, as one of L. Caesar's legati (Historia 6, 1957, 341-342-Studies 56-57). (Broughton MRR III)
  • Legatus (Lieutenant)? 89 Italia (Broughton MRR III) Expand
    • Contrary to the view expressed in MRR 1.568, and 569, note 2, and TAPhA 77, 1946, 35-40, that he was a praetor in 100 and proconsul in 101 and 100, comparison with many governors who went to Spain as praetors with an imperium pro consule (see Jashemski, Proconsular and Propraetorian Imperium, 41-50) has led me to believe that this was the nature of his command too, whether he is termed praetor as in Livy (Per. 68) or proconsul as in Cicero (De Or. 1.82) or in the epigram from Corinth (CIL 1(2).2.2662-ILLRP 1342). Accordingly, his titles give no clue to the course of his actions or to the dates of his quaestors and his legates. It becomes possible, for example, to date the epigram from Corinth, the stay of the fleet under Hirrus, and perhaps even his advance to Side all in the year 102. Note the contribution to his forces from Byzantium (Tac. Ann. 12.62.2). On Antonius in Asia Minor, see Magie, RRAM 283, 1161- 1162; Sherwin-White, JRS 66, 1976, 4-8; 67, 1977; 69-70. His triumph in 100 must be dated after the death of Saturninus, when he was still extra urbem, and before the end of the year (Cic. Rab. Perd. 21). See below, on L. Appuleius Saturninus (29). Consul 99. In MRR 2.1, refer also to CIL 11.2.2305-ILLRP 209. Legatus in the Social War? In Brutus 304 Cicero notes his absence from Rome in 90 and 89. Even though he is not on Appian's list of legates (BC 1.40-41), it is reasonable to infer that he served in the war, quite possibly, as Badian suggests, as one of L. Caesar's legati (Historia 6, 1957, 341-342-Studies 56-57). (Broughton MRR III)
  • Augur 87 (Rüpke 2005) Expand
    • Augur (Schol. Bern. on Lucan 2.121, p. 57U). See above, Tribunes of the Soldiers, on P. Annius. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Legatus (Envoy) 87 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Sent by the Senate to Metellus Pius to urge him to negotiate a peace with the Samnites and come to the defence of Rome (Gran. Lic. 25B; cf. App. BC 1.68; Dio 30-35, fr. 102.6-7). (Broughton MRR II)

< Back to results